finitum non capax infiniti

People familiar with the Old Testament will know that the nation of Edom descended from Esau. At certain times in Israel’s history, the Edomites were enemies of Israel and teamed up with nations such as Babylon to destroy Israel. From the Biblical narrative concerning Jacob and Esau, we know that Esau was a skillful hunter and was also quite a hairy chap. Although Isaac favored Esau, it was Jacob who received the birthright and Jacob through whom the chosen line continued.

I bring up this little history lesson because Anthony Bradley, who is assistant professor of Apologetics and Systematics at Covenant Seminary and contributer on the Resurgence website, recently posted an essay bringing up the differences between Jacob and Esau. His conclusion is seemingly that men should be more like Esau. I say “seemingly” because he does not come right out and say it, but he makes a distinction between Jacob, who was favored by his mother, and Esau, who was favored by his father. He then spends the rest of his article arguing that boys are being “emasculated” because they are cut off from their fathers and become “momma’s boys.”

Let’s spend a few minutes on Professor Bradley’s exegesis and logic.

First, this argument is based on abhorrent exegesis and pure speculation. Professor Bradley quotes Genesis 25.27-28 and then concludes: “Their parent’s favoritism led to Jacob becoming a passive-aggressive deceiver—the quintessential Mama’s boy.” Where is this in the text? I’ll give you a hint: nowhere. Professor Bradley presents this speculation as if it is a solid, Biblical fact. Upon actually looking at the text, however, it is less of a fact and more the result of Professor Bradley reading into the text what is not explicitly there. He claims that it is the result of his mother’s favoritism that lead him to be a “passive-aggressive deceiver.” Could it also had been that he learned from the stories of his grandfather Abraham, who lied about Sarah on two occasions to save his own neck, that deceiving someone can get you what you really want? This would be just as speculative as Professor Bradley’s reading, but just as valid. However, Professor Bradley uses his speculation and reads in his own agenda onto the text in order to make a point that “momma’s boys” end up being passive-aggressive deceivers. Is this Biblical? Absolutely not. Is it an invention from the depths of Professor Bradley’s imagination? Absolutely.

Second, Professor Bradley’s logic is surprisingly awful for a professor of systematics. He makes the argument that boys who end up spending more time with their mothers than their fathers end up being misogynistic or, on the other extreme, womanizers. Where does Professor Bradley get this information from? That is for us to wonder about. The essay sounds more like an opening monologue from Dr. Phil or Oprah than an essay written for the church.

Two key points show where his logic is flawed:
(1) He isn’t basing his argument on the Bible, but on certain isolated experiences that he has gone through or heard about. Had he actually based his argument on the Bible he would have realized that Timothy was raised by women. Where in Paul’s letters to Timothy does he tell Timothy that he needs to gain back his God given masculinity because, having being raised by women, he is a momma’s boy? Nowhere. Rather, Paul calls Timothy to remember what he was taught as a child…and he was taught by woman. And what about Proverbs 31? Does Professor Bradley truly believe that a boy who is raised by this type of woman will be emasculated? A woman whose “strength and dignity are her clothing” and whose “children rise up and call her happy”?
(2) Professor Bradley seems to be throwing back his culturally dictated understanding of masculinity back onto the Biblical text. Our culture presents us with the idea that real masculinity means pick up trucks, beards, muscles, grunts, boots, guns, and square jaws. This seems to be the understanding of a “real man” that Professor Bradley is reading back into Genesis 25. Because Esau was hairy and liked to kill things, he must be a real man. Because Jacob liked to be among the tents, he must be a girly man. That’s why he lied!! And, just like Adam, Professor Bradley wants to point his finger at the woman…it’s all her fault.

I believe that Professor Bradley’s view presented in this essay is completely and utterly flawed. Instead of focusing on the issue of sin which complicates every relationship (father/son, mother/son, father/mother, etc.), Professor Bradley decides to point his finger at the woman who apparently coddles her son, leading him into life of womanizing or misogyny. The fact that saddens me the most is that Professor Bradley is a professor at the flagship seminary of my denomination. If this is the type of teaching that the next generation of our denomination’s ministers are sitting under, then I’m am extremely worried.

It’s not being a “momma’s boy” that causes men to treat women unjustly. It’s a sinful pattern of thinking and behavior, which can be developed and promulgated whether a person is raised by their father and mother, just their mother, or just their father.

The answer isn’t to eat meat, grunt, and bench press with your father. The answer is to repent to your heavenly Father and pray for forgiveness and transformation. And that can happen whether you were raised by your father, mother, sister, cousin, or barber.